Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. P. Singh and B. R. Dubey, JJ.
VAIDYANATH
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Decided On : Apr 25,1974
A Labour Court under the Madhya Pradesh Act like al Labour Court under the Central Act can decide an industria dispute relating to the propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer under the Standing Orders. The order of employer, which is the subject-matter of industrial dispute may be an order of dismissal. The propriety or legality of an order of dismissal can, therefore be decided by a Labour Court under the Madhya Pradesh Act as it could be decided under the Central Act. But the power to determine propriety or legality of an order of dismissal does not confer appellate powers on a Labour Court. Although it has power to determine relevant questions of fact it does not mean that it can go into the merits of the findings reached in a domestic inquiry and reappraise the evidence. The principles which applied to the industrial adjudication under the Central Act were also applicable to the industrial adjudication under the Madhya Pradesh Act.
It is true that under sections 61 (2) and 106 power is given to determine questions of fact relevant to the dispute and to decide all matters arising out of the dispute referred to the Labour Court, but it cannot be said that because of these provisions in the Madhya Pradesh Act a Labour Court functioning under it bas wider powers than a Labour Court functioning under the Central Act before its amendment in 1971.
The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of industrial adjudication of a dispute under the Central Act arising out of an order of dismissal are fully applicable to cases arising under the Madhya Pradesh Act. If the legislature wants to widen the jurisdiction of a Labour Court under the Madhya Pradesh Act and to give it a power analogous to an appellate Court, it can amend the Act by inserting a similar provision as bas been Inserted in the shape of section 11-A in the Central Act. But until the law is amended, interference with an order of dismissal passed by an employer can be made only on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the context of industrial adjudication under the Central Act which have been uniformally followed in cases arising under the Madhya Pradesh Act. (1967) 1 LLJ 463 relied on. (1964) 20 LLJ 31 dissented from. [Para 6
(2) Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (MP)-S.31 (3)-notice of domestic enquiry served on the date of enquiry-no prejudice caused-enquiry not vitiated.
The domestic enquiry was held on 27th Feburary 1970 and the notice of enquiry was served on that very day. It was argued that the enquiry was vitiated as being against the principles of natural justice.
Held: The Standing Orders do not fix any period which must intervene between the date of service of notice and the date of enq1-iry, therefore, all that can be said to be necessary is that the notice must give sufficient time to the employee concerned to prepare himself for the enquiry. It is a question of fact whether the notice in a particular case bas given sufficient time for that purpose.
In the instant case the charge-sheet was served two months earlier, the employee did not object to the enquiry being held on the same day. When notice was served and clearly admitted that he had no objection to the enquiry being held on 27 February 1970. In these circumstances it cannot be held that the petitioner was in any way prejudiced because of the fact of the service of notice on the same day and it cannot be said that the enquiry was vitiated being against the rules of natural justice. [Para 8
(3) Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (M.P.)-S.31 (3)-punishment by the management-interference with.
The punishment imposed by the management when misconduct is proved in a proper domestic enquiry cannot be interfered with except in cases where it is so harsh as to suggest victimisation or unfair labour practice AIR 1973 SC 1227 & AIR 1972 SC 763 relied on. [Para 9
(4) Industrial Relations Act. 1960 (MP)-S. 31 (3)-findings of domesite, tribunal-when may be interfered with.
Interference with the findings in a domestic inquiry can be made in two types of cases: (i) cases in which the findings are not based on legal evidence; and (ii) cases in which the findings are such as no reasonable person could have arrived at on the basis of the material before the Enquiry Officer. In each of these cases the findings are treated as perverse. AIR 1969 SC 983 relied on. [Para 10
( 1. ) THE petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to challenge an order of the State Industrial Court passed on 25th October 1971, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner under section 66 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960.
( 2. ) THE petitioner was employed as a conductor by the Madhya Pradesh state Road Transport Corporation. On 30th December 1969 he was given a charge-sheet alleging that he had carried ten passengers without ticket on rewa- Shadow route on 22nd August 1969. The charges levelled against the petitioner were : (i) that by not issuing tickets to the passengers the petitioner had caused financial loss to the Corporation to the extent of the fare payable by the passengers; (ii) that the petitioner himself recovered the fare from the passenger and misappropriated the same; (iii) that the petitioner disobeyed the orders of the Corporation ; and (iv) that the petitioner contravened sec tion 4 of the Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers) Act. In a domestic inquiry held in accordance with the Standing Orders, the petitioner was found guilty and was dismissed from service on 13th March 1970. The petitioner then, after giving usual approach notice, applied under section 31 (3) of the m. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, to the Labour Court for setting aside the order of dismissal and for his reinstatement. The Labour Court, by its order dated 11th December 1970, dismissed the application of the petitioner holding that the domestic inquiry was proper and no ground was made out for interference with the order of dismissal. A revision was then filed by the petitioner against the order of the Labour Court which, as already stated, was dismissed by the Industrial Court on 25th October 1971. Thereafter the present writ petition was filed in this Court.
( 3. ) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the scheme of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, it is open to the Labour Court to look into the merits of the findings reached in the domestic inquiry and to set aside the order of dismissal, if it takes a different view on the evidence produced in the inquiry. It is also contended that the Labour Court can also interfere with the punishment awarded in the domestic inquiry, if in its opinion the punishment imposed is severe. Learned counsel has argued that the powers of the Labour Court under the Madhya Pradesh Act are wider than the powers of the Labour court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it stood before the amending act 45 of 1971, and that the decisions of the Supreme Court which lay down that the Labour Court functioning under the Industrial Disputes Act did not sit as an appellate tribunal in deciding an industrial dispute relating to dismissal and its powers were limited, cannot be applied under the scheme of the Madhya Pradesh Act. ( 4. ) IN order to appreciate the arguments advanced before us, it is necessary first to examine the scheme of the Central Act and then to examine the scheme of the Madhya Pradesh Act and to see how the two Acts differ on the question of jurisdiction of the Labour Courts and Tribunals constituted under these Acts for the adjudication of an industrial dispute relating to dismissal of an employee. The Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are constituted by sections 7 and 7-A of the Central Act "for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule. " The following three items of the Second Schedule are relevant on the point: 1. The propriety or legality of an order passed by an employer under the standing orders; 2. The application and interpretation of standing orders; and 3. Discharge or dismissal of workmen including reinstatement of, or a grant of relief to, workmen wrongfully dismissed.
A Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal under the Central Act gets jurisdiction when a reference of industrial dispute is m
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
